The host then suggested that because the number of rocket attacks on Israel has dramatically increased since 2009, Israels policy has been a "failure"

(Sharona Schwartz) Beyond its military operation targeting the Hamas terrorist infrastructure in Gaza, Israel is invested in an intense media campaign to make sure its side of the story is being heard overseas. But thats not always easy to do.

In an interview with Israels top envoy to the United States on Saturday, MSNBC provided yet another example of how much work Israeli officials face in their effort to pass through the filter of the mainstream media and present their side of the story.

MSNBCs Mara Schiavocampo began her interview of Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren straightforwardly enough, asking What would be the trigger for a ground operation? Whats the red line here?

Oren answered, You have the equivalent of what would be about 170 million Americans under bomb shelters. If Hamas continues to escalate we will take the necessary and legitimate measures to defend our citizens.

Schiavocampos second question might be considered more controversial, positing the argument that long-range rockets carrying warheads weighing between 20 and 90 kilograms  46 to 198 pounds  arent actually dangerous to human life. She asked:

Living under the threat of rocket attack is certainly a psychological trauma. But what would you say to those who argue that the rockets are essentially very ineffective, they rarely do damage and that the response from Israelis is disproportional to the threat theyre under.

Oren answered she might want to pose that question to the three Israelis killed by a rocket in Kiryat Malachi on Thursday (see TheBlazes story here and Glenn Becks segment looking at media bias and profiling the victims here). Oren suggested Schiavocampo envisage what would happen if Hamas were bombing America. He said:

Imagine if one rocket had fallen in the United States and not now since the year 2009, our last operation, weve had something in the vicinity of 8,000 rockets fall on the State of Israel. Thats more than twice all of the German rockets that fell on London during World War II. And you saw how the British and Americans reacted to that.

Schiavocampo then posited that because the number of rocket attacks on Israel has dramatically increased since 2009, Israels policy has been a failure. By way of comparison, she did not attribute the increase in attacks to other possibilities including: Hamas feeling more emboldened since its ideological ally, the Muslim Brotherhood, took control of next-door Egypt or that its ties have only grown stronger with Iran, which provides its long-range Fajr-5 missiles. She asked Oren:

You mentioned the amount of rocket attacks that have been seen in Israel. In 2009 that number was about 200 and this year its been about 700 despite the fact that weve been down this road again that Israel has responded with military force in the past. So does this show that Israel s policy towards Gaza has been a failure?

Oren said that after 12,000 rocket attacks in the past 12 years on Israeli civilians, We have no option and nor would any other country in the world have an option but to defend our citizens by all necessary and legitimate means.

The sheer cluelessness (intentional or otherwise) of these “journalists” confounds me. Do they not understand the point of these rocket attacks is to terrorize?

Hitler’s V-1’s and to an extent, the V-2’s, had little real strategic ability on Britain’s ability to produce armaments or field troops. Nor did the conventional-warhead SCUDs fired by Saddam Hussein have the capability to defeat coalition forces in Desert Shield/Storm. Yet both tyrants launched endless waves of them, because they were intended to terrify and demoralize. Your own citizens living in fear, never knowing when they might have to dash to a shelter, or knowing if they’re going to make it to safety in time (and not every does) is more than enough provocation, I’d say.

This always reminds me of John Kerry saying that in a war we should give a proportional response. So if someone punched me in the face with 1/3 force I should also do the same with an equal response? Uh, no. If someone strikes you, you return with everything in your current arsenal. The people are unbelievable!

Who listens to MSNBC except like minded loons. Nothing said on that channel should be taken seriously. It has just as responsible reporting as moveon.org. Both are as good and useful as used toilet paper.

I despise “disproportional response.” It is so much new speak, pc, bs that makes me want to throw something at my computer or tv screen every time some whiny liberal mentions it.

Somehow, attacks on Christians and Jews is fine, but any response is “disproportionate.” Bull, if these heathens lob rockets at Israel, Israel should bury all of them. Get them to their supposed paradise quicker. Same in Afghanistan and Iraq. The hell with it, take the gloves off and put them down permanently.

Initially, I was willing to cut her a break when she asked the “what would you say to those who think...” question. There’s nothing wrong with urging the interviewee to address those concerns...

BUT...

When she proceeded to opine that the increasing number of missiles was a result of a failed Israeli policy, she broke it for me. American reporters often sit in and “report” from comfy hotel rooms. They can’t begin to identify with the experiences of those truly affected by conflict.

38
posted on 11/19/2012 11:06:40 AM PST
by ScottinVA
(I've never been more disgusted with American voters.)

According to the code of ethics I adhere to, The initiator of force, nor anyone else, gets to decide what level of force that the defender gets to use. We didn’t win world war II by a proportional response to the Japanese and the Germans. We blew the S&(t out of them until they no longer had any interest in fighting us and that is exactly what the Israelis will have to do.

So 13,000 Hamas missiles launched by Muslim terrorists and at an accelerating rate in this decade is chump change because the victim targets are Israeli civilians? Jewish lives are cheap to MSNBC staff.

Soooooo, if someone’s wildly shooting at you, with a “mere” .22lr round and misses 5-of-6x, but only flesh-wounds you, there’s no sound reason to return fire and kill the POS, before s/he reloads the revolver’s cylinder? Her empty head is a target-rich environment.

Schiavocampo = DUMBASS LIB-DEM MORON!

47
posted on 11/19/2012 12:04:21 PM PST
by carriage_hill
(America - a great idea while it lasted.)

hamas and the muslim brotherhood are the terrorist organizations of Iran and MSLSD is their propaganda outlet...along with the BBC and CNN and ABC and CBS. Israel is trying to get their message out through all possible means, but if I were them I would just stick to Fox News and social media. The IDF videos are very powerful and any sane person can see how far Israel goes to limit civilian deaths, even when those same “civilians” look the other way when hamas fires rockets at Israel.

I have to say that I don’t like questions that begin, “What do you say to those who say/think....” My response would be: “Gather them up and I will address their concerns face to face,” or “Just who are those who say/think this? Are you one of them?”

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.